The Experience-Free Opinion

Whenever I construct a speech (or just say something in general), I tend to format it like a debate. The nature of a debate is to put forward opposing arguments, and the goal is to sift through the weaker ones and find that which prevails. In a sense, the concept of debate is no different in a legislative assembly as it is in your own mind, when you make decisions for yourself. In either setting the goal is to determine which of multiple options is the most correct to choose, and it is done through the process of offering points and contending them.

The posts I write here are intended to seek truth using this process. I am opposed by intellectuals around the world who have publicly presented their points, and I intend to refute those which cannot stand to reason.

Debating the sides of such controversial, dire issues as politics and economics is more than fact-checking, however. One cannot stand before the senate or take the floor of a business room to oppose an idea if he has not another to take its place. And so, in addition to my criticisms, I will make propositions for the topics I discuss, and support them with good reasoning and evidence.

It is always good practice to define one's terms before anything else, as mine may differ from some others'. Sources listed where applicable.

Definitions

Politics: Merriam-Webster reads "the art or science of government." However, for purposes of my contentions it need be somewhat less broad. My definition:

     

     "Societal interactions between individuals or organizations that involve a government."

Economics: From Wikipedia we find "the social science that analyzes the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services." One minor change I would like to make:

     "The social science that analyzes the production, distribution and consumption of limited goods and services."

The purpose of this addition is two-fold. One, to represent the distinction between limited and unlimited resources, only the former of which applies to economics. The second is to specifically avoid the term "scarce." It is often said that economics concerns the allocation of scarce resources, and while, from a strictly economic interpretation of the word "scarce", that is technically true, I find it to be misleading. Scarce seems to imply a small amount, indeed, it is often defined that way. But most basic resources Americans deal with on a regular basis, such as food and clothing are far from few in number-- on the contrary, they are often quite abundant. However, economics still applies to these items as they limited in quantity.

Utilitarianism: My definition:

     "A theory that maintains the principle of 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people'."

This definition, or something very similar, has held for many centuries. It is the ultimate goal that society must attempt to obtain whenever decisions are made. The winner of a debate, ultimately, is the proponent who's ideas best match the criteria of utilitarianism.

+++

There is much to comment on, but not always the time to do so. Updates to my work may be irregular, and also might depend on the interest received by others.

Thanks for reading,
Jacob Oveson